Bad Projection Is Ruining the Movie Theater Experience

[Ryan Gallagher]

Source: https://variety.com/2025/film/news/g...ft-1236502260/


Source: https://kanebridgenews.com/hollywood...en-so-popular/

Do your observations agree with this study by NRG?

I was not expecting my off the cuff theorizing to be backed up by some form of survey or study out there. Maybe there is an iota of some hope?

But YES to that social aspect, I would say that is also what most generations crave again, the youth are just more likely to identify that desire and express it.

This can be enhanced if the rooms/buildings themselves are designed to be beautiful, creative, or inviting again. The industry may have to consider a move more towards its roots and do away with sterile drop ceiling black boxes. Lobbies that are either historically quirky (film ephemera), beautiful (the grand single screens), or chocked full of amenities like games, food, bars, (youth centers) would be my instincts.

In this era, to separate themselves. all presentation technology aside, the cinemas need to once again become places people and kids enjoy being in, and not purpose built to shovel snacks, advertisements, and film going experiences that all feel kinda the same.

The single screen has a huge unspoken advantage here, because the community aspect is heightened by everyone seeing the same film at the same time, everyone exiting to the lobby or hanging out in secondary spaces (under the marquee for us) just had exactly the same experience and that is the ice-breaker that gives permission for you to talk to anyone!

if I operated a plex it would be an interesting social experiment to schedule the same movie across all screens at the same times. Not all films can stretch to do that though.

[Ioannis Syrogiannis]

[...]
if I operated a plex it would be an interesting social experiment to schedule the same movie across all screens at the same times. Not all films can stretch to do that though.

I have just had a moment of epiphany. What about a word to describe that?
Let's call it... [it's on the tip of my tongue...] yes! I found it! Let's call it "interlocking"!

[Ryan Gallagher]

I have just had a moment of epiphany. What about a word to describe that?
Let's call it... [it's on the tip of my tongue...] yes! I found it! Let's call it "interlocking"!

haha. I guess it's already an industry thing they already do on occasion, (or the studios force cinemas to do). No prior experience with plex and how they schedule or book.

[Ioannis Syrogiannis]

To be honest, the whole idea and naming is film based. I thought you were aware and that's why I was kidding about that. Here is an old video that stresses the concept to a whole multiplex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdPKGNCw7lM

Nowadays, with digital, there is no scarcity of film copies, so it makes no sense to start many screens at the same hour and have to deal with a huge crowd on ticket sales, concession and ushering at the same time. Same with having to clean/prepare many screens at the same time as well.

A note, though, if you haven't already figured it out: When that was done, the fact that 90feet of film equals one minute of screening time means that between the first and the second/last projector there was a time difference. So, depending on how long the distance the film was to cover from the first port to the last, the start could have been (and was) minutes apart.
Also, there were cases of electrical mismatches that would mean slightly different speeds between motors and having a kind of failsafe implemented (apart from the "stops" on the platters) between screens.

I am sure that certain members of this forum have a bigger number to offer, but my "high-score" on interlocking was 4 screens. A Saturday upgrade from 3 screens that were originally scheduled (where is that smilie with $$ for eyes?). I don't remember the title. Most my experience was two screens, though.

[Mike Blakesley]

I've heard more than one kid come out of Zootopia 2 saying "That was my favorite movie ever!" or "That was the best movie I've ever seen!"

It's hard to imagine them saying that after having watched a movie on TV. Do they even watch them all in one go?

[Ryan Gallagher]

To be honest, the whole idea and naming is film based. I thought you were aware and that's why I was kidding about that. Here is an old video that stresses the concept to a whole multiplex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdPKGNCw7lM

Nowadays, with digital, there is no scarcity of film copies, so it makes no sense to start many screens at the same hour and have to deal with a huge crowd on ticket sales, concession and ushering at the same time. Same with having to clean/prepare many screens at the same time as well.

A note, though, if you haven't already figured it out: When that was done, the fact that 90feet of film equals one minute of screening time means that between the first and the second/last projector there was a time difference. So, depending on how long the distance the film was to cover from the first port to the last, the start could have been (and was) minutes apart.
Also, there were cases of electrical mismatches that would mean slightly different speeds between motors and having a kind of failsafe implemented (apart from the "stops" on the platters) between screens.

I am sure that certain members of this forum have a bigger number to offer, but my "high-score" on interlocking was 4 screens. A Saturday upgrade from 3 screens that were originally scheduled (where is that smilie with $$ for eyes?). I don't remember the title. Most my experience was two screens, though.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes I was aware of the practice and methods running one print across multiple screens in the film era, I just did not know or recall the industry term for it! Cheers!

So for the various reasons you gave, it is in fact not that common in digital? What about release day for a big film? Does at least the first showing involve a bunch of concurrent screens?

Logistically I understand avoiding it. But we have a 1200 seat house and no onsite parking, and we manage to fill it more often than you would expect for film events. That is more people than many plexes can host. Getting that many people together for a film at the same show time is a feature, not a bug! So I don’t really accept the lines/crowds argument. But we don’t do many back to back like that, so the cleaning bit I understand better. When we do it in festival mode with 30 min changeovers it is a staff volunteer + hired guns porter effort to clean between showings.

If you knew you could fill them concurrently I expect the extra cleaning team and effort would be justified. We also do hour doors in non festival mode to mitigate the concession lines over time. Premieres with free goodies are quite the undertaking to prep.

My prior thoughts as well as that survey/study's emphasis on the desired "social" aspect implies the more people the better! These days the distinguishing feature of "going" is about seeing it with a bunch of people in the same room, either a gaggle of your friends, and/or a big crowd of other fans. Director's often rave about the crowd experience being what makes the room special. Maybe that is always what has made the cinema experience special, until the audiences dropped below a certain threshold anyway? We try to do a good job technically as well of course, but are limited to what our 2K system and brightly colored room can manage for now, which seems not to concern anyone in the audiences.

Hard to speculate, aside from interlocking, but perhaps there could be a "long game" to try to fill the rooms more by creating a bit more scheduling scarcity. It might mean less profit initially due to some people not finding a time slot that works for them, but maybe an improved "experience" due to fuller rooms, which over time might start bringing back or making new cinema fans?

[Ioannis Syrogiannis]

In terms of cinema theater operations, we might not be derailing from the main subject here. I am a bit off my "valid comment" comfort zone, though.

What I have heard, during discussions with the management department was that -apart from the logistical issues- venues that depend a lot on customers coming without preparing or prearranging, like multiplexes that are situated in malls, etc. want to be flexible in terms of available showtimes.

In plain English, the cinema wants to be able to offer to the person that came to watch a certain movie the ability to watch it at 18:00, 18:30, 19:00, 19:15, and so on. Especially on the high-demand times.
So, the feature you are talking about might be something in comparison to screens that can accommodate no more than 300 or 400 people at a time, but unless it's not a blockbuster, but an "event", like theatre or a concert (or maybe a special premiere, like some midnight screenings that took place on premiere day, at 00:00), they prefer many screenings spread along operation times, for the sake of "drop-ins".

What you may find peculiar: I have worked in multiplexes that during the '00s and early '10s had screening times starting on a weekday from 14:00 or 15:00 up until 01:30 in the morning hours. Even for movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Nowadays, from what I can see on their online-sales, their schedule is more conservative and doesn't stress until later than 23:00, as far as starting times go.

[Ed Gordon]

...Director's often rave about the crowd experience being what makes the room special. Maybe that is always what has made the cinema experience special, until the audiences dropped below a certain threshold anyway? We try to do a good job technically as well of course, but are limited to what our 2K system and brightly colored room can manage for now, which seems not to concern anyone in the audiences.

From The Psychology of Entertainment: Why We Love Watching in Crowds:

We laugh more at movies when we watch them with others. We get bigger thrills from action thrillers. We’re more likely to cry during a tear jerker. When we’re with a bunch of other people, it’s as if our emotions are turbocharged. Why?

One could say it’s our environment. Sitting in a darkened theater we focus more attention on whatever we’re watching. There are fewer distractions. We become more fully engaged with the experience. This provides part of the answer, but it’s certainly not the entire answer.

One could also say it’s the technology. It would be hard to argue that a billboard sized image that fills our entire field of vision (especially one that gives us a 3D experience) is more powerful than the typical home screen. Back that up with a full theater sound system and you have a powerfully engaging experience. Certainly that might explain the higher octane thrills we would get in an action movie, but it doesn’t seem as applicable in a tear jerker or a comedy. Is a 40 foot high Rachel McAdams more emotionally compelling than a 2 foot high one? Possibly, but the explanation still seems to fall short.

We know that we behave differently in groups than we do as individuals. At its most benign, it’s the shared experience of an entertainment event. At its most sinister, it’s the so called “mob mind,” a crowd induced mentality that through history is responsible for millions of lost lives. The power of synchronized emotion is immense.

You can not recreate this experience in your "home cinema". You can project onto a large screen in a darkened room, but without the crowd you are not going to have the same experience.

[Ryan Gallagher]

In terms of cinema theater operations, we might not be derailing from the main subject here. I am a bit off my "valid comment" comfort zone, though.

What I have heard, during discussions with the management department was that -apart from the logistical issues- venues that depend a lot on customers coming without preparing or prearranging, like multiplexes that are situated in malls, etc. want to be flexible in terms of available showtimes.

In plain English, the cinema wants to be able to offer to the person that came to watch a certain movie the ability to watch it at 18:00, 18:30, 19:00, 19:15, and so on. Especially on the high-demand times.
So, the feature you are talking about might be something in comparison to screens that can accommodate no more than 300 or 400 people at a time, but unless it's not a blockbuster, but an "event", like theatre or a concert (or maybe a special premiere, like some midnight screenings that took place on premiere day, at 00:00), they prefer many screenings spread along operation times, for the sake of "drop-ins".

What you may find peculiar: I have worked in multiplexes that during the '00s and early '10s had screening times starting on a weekday from 14:00 or 15:00 up until 01:30 in the morning hours. Even for movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Nowadays, from what I can see on their online-sales, their schedule is more conservative and doesn't stress until later than 23:00, as far as starting times go.

But that's just it isn't it? Cinema should be an "event"!, or at least release weekends should be! (I'm also out of my depth, but willing to throw out some insider/outsider perspectives just in case the universe is reading it).

I think that in the hey day the "flexible in terms of available showtimes" plex model was great... there was far less trouble filling rooms then. But at some point the industry has to admit that we are in a new reality now, and that perhaps there is a critical audience size that has to be maintained for it to still really qualify as the cinema experience (as Ed references too).

Below that threshold is maybe when cinema starts to eat it's own tail, and you'll have people leaving an afternoon screening with 1 or two other groups attending, and wondering if maybe they should have just watched it at home, cause other than the big and loud aspects, it becomes much the same experience without the critical mass audience (I'd speculate it lies near 1/3 of a room as a minimum).

And that's just ONE of the myriad of problems facing the industry, we've had many threads on the others too (on screen advertising, not publicizing accurate show times, technical and presentation shortfalls, lack of "good" films, studio's rigid booking requirements, shortened exclusivity windows, near same day streaming releases, poor facilities upkeep etc etc etc).

The industry probably could have survived any two of those... but combine them all and boy are cinemas in real trouble if something doesn't give. Just an opinion of course. ;-)

[Ryan Gallagher]

Personally I'd love to see studios and some exhibitor locations put their heads together and run some on the ground experiments to gather real data in this era. Maybe buy out the advertising contract at a few venues to nix the ads. Without ads you can publicize times differently. Try out some "interlocked" show times for bigger in person crowds. We'd all love to see them try longer exclusivity windows again of course. Maybe an incentivizing scheme to encourage the fixing of some technical issues? Booking discounts for functional masking and minimum threshold viewing criteria?

If you really want people to sit through trailers, take a page from live performing arts... and implement a "late seating" policy. Those arts still understand the significance of the first few moments of the production, and don't permit late comers to interrupt the experience for others. They get seated after the overture or after scene 1. Make the published start time align with trailers, but if people show up after that time they are not permitted into the room until after the feature's title cards? Or just accept that some people don't want to see trailers, and advertise Doors, Trailers Start, and Feature Start. Talking crazy, blaphemy I know. ;-)

[Mike Blakesley]

I think consistency is the key. At our place, most people know that the show will start at the advertised time with trailers, and then about 10 to 12 minutes later the feature will start.

We occasionally get some tourist who comes in at 35 minutes past showtime and says "you're probably still showing commercials, right?" and they're stunned to find out they've missed 20 minutes of the feature.

[Dave Macaulay]

Some of the ones I work with are actually trying to do the best they can. They have automated movers for the 3D adapter, leaving it in for 2D was a real problem for a while. They have staff audit the rooms once the feature starts. They do a quick clean between shows, but if something like the Minecraft nonsense happens there is no time to clean much, hopefully that isn't happening again.
Others don't seem to care. They rush cleaning, just grabbing cups and bags. They depend on complaints to track quality. And that does not work! People generally hate to get up and find someone to complain to. As a customer I've experienced crazy problems with nobody getting up to report. 35mm it could be a splice knocking the not quite latched gate either closed or wide open, focus going to hell. Or framing jumping 1/4 frame. I had one show have the film walk off the sound drum somehow with a nasty racket then silence. And nobody got up. I had to fix that myself, single screen house where the manager/projectionist/concession guy had gone to walk his dog. Luckily the booth was open. I doubt that leaving the place unsupervised was legal.
And there is an owner attitude that really bothers me - that they make most of their money on concession and don't care so much about projection. NOBODY goes to a cinema to pay 4x street price for candy and drinks, and the popcorn isn't that fabulous. Don't forget why they come in the door!